Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-murchison-webdav-prefer-05.txt

On 2013-09-19 17:53, Ken Murchison wrote:
> On 09/19/2013 10:53 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2013-09-19 16:43, Ken Murchison wrote:
>>> On 09/19/2013 10:38 AM, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
>>>> Hi Ken,
>>>>
>>>> --On September 19, 2013 at 10:05:04 AM -0400 Ken Murchison
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> If you feel that this is a show-stopper, I can certainly remove this
>>>>>>> text.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd get rid of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well I do think it is worth mentioning that the Brief header exists
>>>> and this new draft is defining a standards-based alternative to that -
>>>> emphasizing that servers/clients that currently support Brief can also
>>>> implement Prefer without any problems. The only thing to state is that
>>>> if a server receives both Brief and Prefer it should prefer Prefer!
>>
>> Prefer: prefer
>>
>> /me ducks
>>
>>> Do you have any suggested text to replace/augment what I have in
>>> Appendix A?  I think Julian wants me to remove the suggestion that
>>> Prefer-based implementations also implement Brief.
>>
>> Stating where it came from is good (plus having the references).
>>
>> I just wouldn't recommend to implement it; if you do so, people *will*
>> ask what the point of the new spec is.
>>
>
> How about something like this:
>
> "Client and server implementations that already support the Brief field
> header should be able to add support for the return=minimal preference
> with little effort."  (I had "minimal effort" but it didn't read right)

Right. You need a proper parser for "Prefer", after all.

> "If a server receives both Brief and Prefer header fields in a request,
> it MUST ignore the Brief header field and only apply the Prefer header
> field preferences, if it so chooses."

Sounds good to me.

Best regards, Julian